>>53
well if we're talking about origin theories, namely the big bang vs. a sentient stimulus, then the discussion becomes which is more plausible given available evidence: a theory with tons of observable and testable evidence already in our possession or one for which there is no evidence or method of testing?
"It is simply arrogance and speculation to state that you are certain that it wasn't, given the (lack of) evidence available."
I'm not so sure it's arrogance that we reject that which has no evidence, or else we'd have to give consideration to ANYTHING that came across our plate. At some point you have to realize that yes almost anything can be possible, but unless it's backed up by actual testable, repeatable evidence, you're going to have to put it waaay back on the back burner until your theory overpowers what we already have. Current theories of intelligent design are miles away from being taken seriously, and usually end up warping current science to make it seem like they have a valid point to make.
and as for your example of a cycle of virtual realities building virtual realities, you still come across the problem of, going back far enough, what was the initial stimulus?